I have relentlessly outlined Trump’s shortcomings from a business leadership standpoint.

I have relentlessly outlined Trump’s dubious relationship with the truth.

But today I turn to … well … not even his words … but how he talks.

I mean … well … who the hell talks like this?

“You know, I’m, like, a smart person.”

Uh huh.

Yeah.

Right.

I can honestly say that after having sat in thousands of business meetings, hundreds of conference rooms, dozens of boardrooms and currently trade personal emails with a wide range of business executives … the only person I have ever heard talk like this in a corporate business environment was eventually fired, monitored as he packed up his office, and escorted out of the office by security people.

He was a whack job.

And he talked like this.

All of this makes me begin to think Trump may actually … sigh … not telling us the truth when he says, “you know, I’m like a smart person.”

<note: “like” falls into the same speech pattern as the valley girl “whatever”>

The evidence continues to mount just from the shit he says that he is … well … just not smart.

I know dozens of business executives.

I know some incredibly smart people … maybe even some brilliant people.

I know some Ivy League graduates. Heck. I even know a Wharton person <Stanford people tend to be smarter & I have never met a non-smart Yale grad>.

And what I know is that none of these people talk like this.

I am no psychologist but I imagine the people who talk like this, and the ones who talk in first person <Ricky Henderson most likely being the most famous first person speaker — he called San Diego GM Kevin Towers and left the following message: “This is Rickey calling on behalf of Rickey. Rickey wants to play baseball.” > are people who are actually trying to persuade themselves that they are smart, have a good brain and know good words.

I admit when I hear Trump talk, well, I teeter between repeating Rex Tillerson’s reported thought on Trump — “fucking moron” – and simply shaking my head and saying “who the hell talks like this?”

All I know is that it seems more cartoon-like than President-like:

———————-

“I went to an Ivy League college. I was a nice student. I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person.”

‘I’m, like, a really smart person’

“I am also honored to have the greatest temperament that anybody has.”

“I would say basically we talked condolence.”

“I have one of the great memories of all time.”

“Nobody has more respect than I do. Nobody.”

“Well, I think the press makes me more uncivil than I am. You know – people don’t understand – I went to an Ivy League college. I was a nice student. I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person. You know, the fact is, I think, I really believe, I think the press creates a different image of Donald Trump than the real person.”

“… my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart

“My generals and my military, they have decision-making ability,”

“The response and recovery effort probably has never been seen for something like this. This is an island, surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water.”

After arriving in Israel from Saudi Arabia, Trump told his hosts: “We just got back from the Middle East.”

And, of course,

Trump to hurricane victims in Puerto Rico: “Have a good time”

===================

I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but, c’mon, no reasonable business person with any reasonable experience talks like this.

And we know that.

We do.

For some we knew this is not normal behavior earlier and for others it has been a grudging realization.

That said.

While we know no one should talk like this we have two problems in finally admitting it & dealing with it:

Just once becomes … well … okay just one more time … and then … oops … and you are well on your way on the slippery slope.

Suffice it to say a shitload of people are on the slippery slope with regard to making excuses for Trump.

And they know it.

And while those of us not on the slope can stand there and be righteous … I think it would behoove us to recognize that any slippery slope is a sonuvabitch to get off of.

We would be foolish to utter some simplistic tripe like “just do it” … just get off it.

We would be foolish because it is difficult — for everyone <if you have ever been on a slippery slope … despair, small lies, depression, etc. … you understand>.

Give someone a hand.

Help them.

Quit moralizing. Quit being righteous. Quit being holier than thou. Just fucking help them get off the slippery slope.

Holding him accountable and our own accountability.

Oh … shit. Accountability is a two way street. No matter how heinous Trump may be on occasion if you hold him accountable … you will also be held accountable. What that means is it inevitably becomes a comparison of ‘failings.’

Well.

That sucked to type.

This means failings of character.

This means failings in judgement.

All of your own failings enter into the accountability fray <and I can guarantee he will bring them into the fray>.

If you make him accountable for his, you need to be accountable for yours <and do not be defensive in doing so>.

And this means dealing with a ‘counterpuncher’ who cannot discern the false equivalence between character failings and judgement and simply hammers away in his simplistic grade school rhetoric in a “if this, then that” pushback.

That sounds … well … horrible. But here’s what you have on your side.

Remember … who the hell talks like that?

Yeah. That’s his weak spot. Accountability does not need intellectualism so you can leave the high falutin’ words at home. Accountability of character & judgement is easy to articulate. It is easy because people really do know right from wrong and that how you win matters more than just winning … they just need to be reminded. And when they are reminded … people will hold him accountable.

Look.

No truly experienced normal business person talks like how Trump talks. They would get kicked out of any office in any viable business in America.

Trump has had 71 years, access to some of the finest America has to offer in education and the opportunity to learn more through experiences than most of us could ever dream for.

He has squandered them all.

Other than being able to bully his way through real estate transactions and make gobs of money off of licensing deals <which is simply being a grifter> he is hollow … hollow of even the most basic information a United States high school senior possesses.

If we cannot win against someone who talks like this, who is hollow … well … WTF … we don’t deserve to win.

Me? I would take him on anywhere at any time. He is hollow, I have seen hollow in business, and I know hollow cannot win.

“In general, people are not drawn to perfection in others. People are drawn to shared interests, shared problems, and an individual’s life energy. Humans connect with humans.

Hiding one’s humanity and trying to project an image of perfection makes a person vague, slippery, lifeless, and uninteresting.”

—

Robert Glover

==================

“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

—–

Saul D. Alinsky

===================

So.

I was fishing around for some new ways to talk about leading a business <I get bored with using the same words and thoughts over and over again> and I came across the Saul Alinsky quote … the second one I used upfront.

It resonated with me because I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in some company “forward thinking strategy” meeting discussing how we would expand the business … stretching not only beyond the existing functional strength of the business but also stepping beyond the existing expertise of the employees.

This is usually cloaked in the infamous “oh, if we can do this, we can certainly do this” statement … or the even more dangerous “we have always figured it out” mantra.

To be clear … progress is always tricky. And leading progress almost even trickier.

But, if you want it to be less trickier, ‘feeling secure’ is almost always a great step toward increasing the odds of success.

Now.

You can secure the … well … security … in a number of ways – some reality based and some emotionally charged ways.

And that is where Saul Alinsky comes back into the leadership discussion. He wrote a book calledRules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals in 1971. He wrote it as a guide to community organization <uniting “Have-Nots”, in order for them to gain social, political, legal, and economic power>.

What I loved about the Rules, beyond the rules themselves, was that Alinsky believed, when organized and directed well, the community can determine & achieve its purpose & goal. That thought, to me, is exactly the attitude a leader attempts to create <supporting a vision offered by the leader> within an organization.

What I loved about the Rules is the rules themselves are actually signposts for how to have a company compete in the marketplace.

That said.

Let me share the rules and some brief thoughts with the rules. The Rules:

—

“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

Far too often … despite the fact 99% of businesses unequivocally state “our difference is our people” … a business forgets to actually build their power off of flesh & blood.

Money comes and goes.

Machines and infrastructure does what it does.

But people, flesh & blood, is the true power. It pays, as a leader, to never forget that.

“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

Every business I have been involved with has had an expertise. Uhm. The difficulty is that far too many leaders & managers wish the organization had a different expertise or they aspire to some other expertise.

I, personally, love the thought of isolating a company expertise, consolidating the inside expertise and using it like a battering ram in terms of progress.

People love doing things well and being appreciated for the expertise they have <and not diminished by suggesting they should have another expertise>.

“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

When I saw this one I almost chuckled. It is so good, so solidly strategically right … and I would guess 95% of businesses never think this way. Oh. They may be happy identifying a “this is what we are better at than they are” and competing with that in their hip pocket … but I struggle to think of any business I have ever been involved with who has sat down and said “let’s go outside their expertise <and consciously accepting they have an expertise.”

Crushing a competitor is always fun but ignoring an opportunity to outflank them is stupid.

“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

Ok.

Here is why I loved this one.

I loved it because bullshit & hollow rhetoric and promises/claims are strewn throughout the business world. I can guarantee, with 95% certainty, I could pick up any business’s vision & strategy & ‘rules of the road’ binder and find a significant amount of hollow shit. What would happen if I consciously attacked one of my competitor’s hollow shit? Make them live up to their own book of rules?

I am chuckling.

You would crush them.

You would crush them in two ways:

External perceptions: everyone knows almost all businesses make hollow promises but get aggravated when it becomes too obvious that the promise really is hollow

Internal perceptions: almost every employee simply accepts that some of the company rhetoric is bullshit but they accept it because it doesn’t really affect them. But if the hollow rhetoric becomes obvious AND a pain in the ass … discontent grows. Bitching at the water cooler increases.

This is an awesome leadership thought.

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

I admit. Ridiculing your competition is fraught with peril. However … having some swagger and vocalizing your swagger is … well … infuriating to some competition. It puts pressure on them.

Ridiculing, specifically, what a competitor believes is their most potent weapon will … well … infuriate them.

Pick your path wisely … but there is absolutely nothing wrong with swagger, infuriating your competition and putting some pressure on them.

“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

Far too often some strategic guru envisions some tactic that will be smashingly successful and then attempt to imbue some excitement within the people who will actually do it. I think the best strategic thinkers find tactics that people enjoy AND can be smashingly successful. Unfortunately this is harder than you would think. But nothing really good is easy.

“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

Amen.

A lesson we forget every day <and should not>.

“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

Tactical adaptation is possibly one of the most underrated strategic decisions a business can make. While we talk a good game on this in today’s ‘digital world’ the truth is that most of us chase numbers more than we think about outflanking and expertise advantages. That is kind of the bane of the ‘big data’ world.

Numbers are good in judging things but, in the end, people & behavior are not numbers and no matter how good a tactic may appear in a number it can always be replaced.

“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

I am not an empty threat guy, however, ‘power is what the competition thinks you have.’ My point here is not to make shit up and offer empty threats but rather the more you can make a competitor think, and worry, about the wrongs things the better off you are.

Stoke their imagination.

Make them have high falutin’ meetings pondering “what if” scenarios.

I wouldn’t do this to replace any of the other rules … but in combination?

Whew. This is good stuff.

“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.

Sometimes in today’s business world we treat tactics like spaghetti we throw against the wall and hope something sticks. I am not suggesting a business should invest gobs of energy developing operations to maintain constant pressure in INDIVIDUAL tactics but I am suggesting that strategic tactics tend to coalesce and operations can be developed to support them.

I imagine the real point here is hollow tactics may generate some numbers for you but they don’t really make any dent into the competition <which, inevitably, is the key to leading an industry>.

“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

I love this thought because, let’s be honest, we have become a mamby pamby business world. What I mean by that is at the first glimpse of any significant negativity we tend to retreat or retrench. Pushing through a negative is not standard operating procedure in a business today.

Let me be clear on this one.

If you do Rule #5 well, you will infuriate your competition. An infuriated competitor reacts <usually with some desire to inflict some negative pain> — they will violently react. If you stay the course, maintain your expertise, well … you can push through and own a positive.

More businesses need to remember this.

“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

I call this “consolidating a win.”

I cannot tell you how many times <but far too many> I have seen a business “lose after winning.” It is maddening, depressing & demoralizing … and completely avoidable.

Far too many businesses chase the success assuming they will be able to take a breath and take advantage of the success in a relatively timely fashion.

This is where ideas die.

In the take-a-breath moment.

This happens for a bunch of well-intended reasons … the most likely one is everyone invests their energy on the attack and a successful attack rather than diverting any energy & time to “what do we do when we are successful” other than maybe a framework of ‘what will happen.’

Unfortunately … frameworks do not consolidate.

The solution to this is so obvious I scratch my head as to why more businesses do not do it. Businesses always have two basic levels … the outside structure and the inside structure. The outside is the face of the organization and most typically is the one that pushes through and creates the ‘wins.’ The inside operations gets shit done … I have always had an ‘inside operations team’ well briefed and ready to go and insert them into the breach as soon as the win has occurred and have the ‘fresh team’ consolidate.

I could write an entire ‘consolidation strategy’ piece but suffice it to say your business gains value in a number of dimensions by doing it this way.

The larger point with this Rule is ‘don’t lose a win by not having a plan for when you win.’

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Well. Let me share the thought that first hit me on this … “a brand is a promise delivered in the store everyday” <this was The Limited’s phrase>. The point is that a business doesn’t exist if it doesn’t deliver upon what it promises.

That said … this is an important rule. As in a REALLY important rule that I bet 99% of companies do not even think about let alone adhere to. Most businesses target another competitor’s users & customers and go about trying to steal them <persuade them to switch>.

Well.

What about instead we attacked the company, the support network … the “promise” as it were … and make the people who actually deliver the promise start doubting, or start feeling less than secure, or just “less good about their brand & promise”?

If we did this, we create a gap, isolate as it were, between what the customer thought they wanted and what they perceive they are getting or would get.

I love this rule.

I admit I had never thought about t this way before … but from here on out it is part of my leadership toolkit.

———

Okay.

Those are some good rules for business.

But you know what?

It all comes back to the first Rule and my first quote.

Flesh & blood is the real power in any business and … people are drawn to shared interests, shared problems, and an individual’s life energy. Humans connect with humans.

Honestly … I don’t think most leaders ignore the fact the people in their organizations are important but I think we don’t elevate them to ‘flesh & blood is the power’ status.

And that is where the Rules come in.

Inherent to each rule, and the success therein, resides with … well … the flesh & blood. That is a pragmatic reminder for leading a business.

“As a therapist, let me just say: almost every trauma survivor I’ve ever had has at some point said, ‘But I didn’t have it as bad as some people,’ and then talked about how other types of trauma are worse. Even my most-traumatized, most-abused, most psychologically-injured clients say this.

The ones who were cheated on, abandoned, and neglected say this.

The ones who were in dangerous accidents/disasters say this.

The ones who were horrifyingly sexually abused say this.

The ones who were brutally beaten say this.

The ones who were psychologically tortured for decades say this.

What does that tell you?

That one of the typical side-effects of trauma is to make you believe that you are unworthy of care. Don’t buy into it, because it’s nonsense. It doesn’t matter if someone else had it ‘worse.’

Every person who experiences a trauma deserves to get the attention and care they need to heal from it.”

—

hobbitsaarebas

===================

“It’s true, I suffer a great deal–but do I suffer well? That is the question.”

―

Thérèse de Lisieux

===

“… victimization is a way of attracting sympathy, so rather than emphasize either their strength or inner worth, the aggrieved emphasize their oppression and social marginalization.”

—-

sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning

============

Whew.

Believing you are unworthy of care.

I call this “victimhood backlash.”

Now.

This is different than feeling unworthy of love, respect or … well … unworthy of something or any of that type of thing.

In fact.

This is actually the exact opposite of a victim mentality.

This is when something truly bad has happened to you <you are a real victim of something> and you look around and say “whew, they are the real victims.” In a real sense this person then constructs an extremely viable narrative to suggest that while they are in a shithole … their shithole is nothing compared to some other people’s shithole.

This is not self deprecation … it is a sincere feeling that what you did or experienced was closer to ordinary rather than extraordinary.

But.

I say this unequivocally … even if someone is shrugging off help or maybe even adamantly opposing the help … a hole is a hole and you need help getting out of holes.

Someone may not think they are worthy of care, or asking for help … but they need it.

Anyway.

I have two thoughts on this ‘believing unworthy of care’.

First.

A hole is a hole.

If you are in a hole, it is a hole.

I have written this before … a shithole is a shithole. We are not in the shithole comparison business. All shitholes are dark, deep and often don’t have a visible ladder to get out of the shithole.

To me?

Horrible is horrible.

A black hole is a black hole.

And while maybe not all holes and abysses are created equal … all seem equally deep, dark & shitty when in one.

This may not be literally true … but figuratively I tend to believe that is how we view it when encountering some shit Life gives us which places us into some dark hole.

Second.

I do not believe that victimhood is some cultural crisis <the sociologists I highlight upfront do suggest that>.

Yeah.

The things for which we can publicly accept the fact we were a victim of has certainly increased. This doesn’t mean more shit, and shitholes, have occurred … it is just that it is now more acceptable to admit them and address them.

Can this get out of whack? Sure.

But a long as someone isn’t creating a shithole and claiming being a victim then .. well … a shithoe is a shithole.

I would suggest that we want people who feel like they are n some shithole because they were a victim of something to speak out regardless of whether an everyday schmuck like me may look at them and say “c’mon, be real, that’s Life” and maybe we should be focusing on how to better address them when they speak out.

We need less pandering and more reality management. We need less judgement and more dialogue.

We need to grow a dialogue culture. Rather than responding to comments or behaviors with less condemnation or judgement and more engagement to engage rather than repel <without increasing victim mentality but rather managing it>.

But we do not want anyone at anytime to believe that they are unworthy of care.

Anyway.

I can almost guarantee almost everyone will either slip into a hole or go crashing into a hole at some point in their Life.

And that person <which means, uhm, everyone> will need help getting out of it.

For if you permit someone to linger too long in the hole … well … the abyss will gaze into them. And inevitably find some dark corner in the mind that they will find a place to live, eat and breathe for years and years to come.

Just accept what I just said without shrugging or thinking “that’s some bad shit.”

<Most> Holes are fine in Life.

They are part of Life.

Regardless of whether the shithole is incredibly shitty or just basic shit they have the same intended conclusion — you just have to make sure you know how to get out of them.

Ah.

Which leads me back to the opening quote.

Someone who believes that they are unworthy of care.

I say that because you can spend a lot of time looking around at other shitholes thinking about how to get other people out of their shitholes … all the while ignoring your own shithole, avoiding finding a way out of our own shithole and, maybe the worst, if you gaze long enough into an abyss … anyone’s abyss … it will gaze into you.

============

“And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.”

–

<Beyond Good and Evil> Friedrich Nietzsche

==============

Look.

I have had this debate a zillion times … the one where you discuss who has it worse.

Who is going through tougher times.

Who has actually gone through a tougher time.

Maybe even discussing a bad moment in life as horrible, but always discussing ‘horrible’ relative to other horribleness.

And while it is most likely true that, regardless of your situation, someone somewhere has it worse than you do … that thought only seems to offer some false comfort nor does it really offer any solutions.

To me … comparing bad situations is not only not very helpful but it also tends to suggest the wrong thing to me – “my suffering isn’t equal to your suffering.” Which tends to lead to “I don’t believe I am worthy of care.”

Bad. Wrong.

I do not believe we should be in the shithole comparison business.

A shit hole is a shithole and anyone in a shithole is just as worth of care as anyone else in a shithole.

“I eventually came to understand that in harboring the anger, the bitterness and resentment towards those that had hurt me, I was giving the reins of control over to them.”

―

Isabel Lopez

==================

“Beware of those who are bitter, for they will never allow you to enjoy your fruit.”

―

Suzy Kassem

==============

Well.

Spite and resentment is one of the least discussed business ailments in the business leadership and organization world.

What I mean is that businesses around the world <including the good ole USofA> are strewn with middle management and upper management who carry a full backpack of resentment. This backpack has a nifty well designed logo on it — victim.

I would imagine <this is a guess> that this significant sprinkling of people in the business world carrying around the resentment of being victimized in some form or fashion do not hold the most senior spots but rather they hold the responsibilities most dangerous to the overall health of an organization – middle management.

They are most likely not at the top because those people got the positions they deserve <mostly>.

The ones who carry resentment are the ones who have been promoted “too slowly” or maybe haven’t been “recognized for the talents they offer” or maybe have been passed over by “someone who doesn’t know half the shit I know” … and then … to their satisfaction … they have FINALLY been promoted.

They take the step up but before they do … stop at the bottom of the stairs to pick up their backpack of resentment … and then accept the step up.

I often think of this as the ugly underbelly of ‘entitled’ or “finally getting what one deserves.” This is … uhm … in other words … resentment. And resentment carries a nasty quiver of grievance arrows to shoot when given the opportunity.

And grievances have a nasty habit of being one of those things that like to be addressed and not ignored.

Now.

Some people confuse this with “carrying a chip on their shoulder” which is what got them to where they are today.

Uhm. That’s bullshit.

People mistakenly conflate “carrying a chip on their shoulder” with ambition.

It’s not as simple as that. In fact … that simplistic ‘go about business like they have a chip on their shoulder’ is actually just a lazy attitude toward motivation.

It is more often than not some self-created ‘boogieman’ someone has created in their mind in order to go out and be your best. That’s bullshit. If that’s all you have for motivation … well … that’s just not good <for you and the people you work with>.

Yes.

In small doses a ‘chip on your shoulder’ can give you some well needed nudges to “I will show them” attitude at some key moments.

No.

Large doses, or constant, “conducting myself with a chip on my shoulder” attitude simply makes you … well … an asshole.

You become an asshole because this 100% chip on shoulder attitude actually makes hate, in some form or fashion, the energy to drive everything – it creates an outsized sense of grievance which you bring with you wherever you go.

This grievance not only seems to pour from every pore in this person but also seems to appear every time this person makes a decision <if not in the words they say>.

Yeah.

The resentment people can be crafty.

Crafty in that they justify their behavior not just based on their outsized chip but more often that they are standing up for all who have been overlooked and begrudged of what they were entitled to by some unfair system or ‘cadre of assholes driven to let mediocrity thrive.’

It’s another version of us versus them but with a total selfish foundation.

In addition.

If they are good at masking their resentment, each decision, taken as mutually exclusive of all other decisions, can maybe be explained as a ‘personal issue being addressed’ or sometimes even simply an impulsive instinctual decision.

That’s bullshit too.

I am not suggesting all employees burdened by an unhealthy weight of resentment are actually bad managers and business people <in a pragmatic competent sense> but they do have a nasty tendency to have built this façade of some “personal brand” which they have honed over time as they have been ignored & overlooked so much so that all decisions and choices get instinctually filtered through this personal brand filter.

Nothing is impulsive, nothing is “resentment driven” and nothing is “addressing a grievance” … it is all simply driven by the personal brand.

What makes this behavior confusing to people <in terms of trying to discern motivations and the sense that there is an unhealthy amount of resentment incorporated into the management style> is that there is no long term strategy … it just assumes that all transactions meet the brand therefore, in the long run, it is good.

Exceeding expectations is defined in a transaction by transaction basis and weapons used to meet expectations <responsibilities> are justified a means to an end. In other words these managers can screw anyone they want professionally but if within that specific project, assignment or transaction the greater organizational expectations are met or exceeded … well … this manager has “won.”

Oddly … this behavior creates an odd sense of consistency … & inconsistency. It can often appear inconsistent in that the actions, behavior & decisions are not particularly driven by any business philosophy or ideology … or even based on what is right or wrong. This drives the appearance of inconsistency.

The consistency is grounded on vindictiveness. This doesn’t mean any and all actions are vindictive just that if the opportunity arises to address some self-defined grievance and the window of opportunity to be vindictive opens … well … this person will jump through that window.

===============

“I must fight with my weapons. Not his. Not selfishness and brutality and shame and resentment.”

―

John Fowles

===================

Here is the problem with all that I have shared today.

Resentment is part of the devilish trinity of bad shit in a business environment – fear, anger, resentment.

All the yesterdays make this person angry and humiliated and, frankly, they feel like they have been taken advantage of.

It creates a negative emotional foundation from which all behavior and actions are leveraged from.

I could argue that this is a cultural thing. Something like a “culture of entitlement” in which people feel like they are promised promotions & money simply because they work hard.

I will not.

This is an individual issue.

Individuals are responsible and complicit in this attitude and behavior – culture does not force them to do anything and think anything on this issue.

I could argue that this is some version of culture encouraging a larger sense of victimhood.

I will not.

This is an individual issue.

It is not victimhood if you shoulder your own responsibilities and are ‘punished’ if the chips do not fall your way.

I could argue that thus is some warped version of culture encouraging unrealistic expectations.

I will not.

This is an individual issue.

Expectations are defined personally … society and culture doesn’t tell you what to expect … you craft that expectation all by your lonesome. And, I have news for everyone, while Life & business can be pretty cruel and unfair, in general, those who have ability and work hard do not typically get overlooked or left behind. Hate to tell the “resentful managers” but … well … I feel pretty confident suggesting that as a basic business truth.

The only thing I will argue is that someone who has a big backpack of resentment should never be a leader.

Why?

Anger today.

Resentment of yesterday.

Fear of tomorrow.

That is the trio of partners in crime in this sad story. I have to tell you. I am fairly sure no business wants those three sitting in any one office every day in their business. And I am absolutely sure these are not qualifications one seeks in a new employee.

“The worst thing about falling to pieces is that humans can do it so quietly.”

–

inkskinned tumblr

===========================

“The loneliest moment in someone’s life is when they are watching their whole world fall apart, and all they can do is stare blankly.”

——

F. Scott Fitzgerald

==============

Well.

Stark.

That is what I felt when I put these two quotes together for the first time.

Starkly absent of cynicism, pessimism or optimism.

Just stark.

Stripped of any hues of Life.

That’s what I felt.

Shit.

I then sat back and said “whew, if I felt that … imagine how someone feels who actually writes these things.”

And maybe that is my point.

Most of us can only imagine how it feels.

Most of us, at our worst, get only a glimpse of this starkness.

And even then our stark is most likely not this stark.

Now … what I do know that humans can fall to pieces incredibly quietly.

I do know that starkness is difficult to express to someone who has never seen starkness.

I do know that there are most likely more people who, on the outside, are holding their shit together so well that most of us don’t even think to offer a ‘are you doing okay’ question.

I do know these are the people who so quietly are falling apart.

So here’s the deal.

Falling apart is falling apart. What I mean by that is everything, and I mean everything, that falls apart makes some sound. You just have to listen closely enough to hear it.

===============

No, now you’ve got me interested, I want to know

exactly what seems wrong to you, how something could

seem wrong to you. In what way do things get to be wrong?

——

John Ashbery

=====================

You have to listen closely for the sound one makes when they fall to pieces quietly.

For there is a sound.

It may be just a whisper of a sound. You may even confuse it for the rustle of falling leaves.

But.

Quietly or not … as the pieces fall apart they make a sound.

You just have to listen closely.

This gets even trickier. Let me go back to my ‘stark’ opening. If you have never truly experienced stark, it is difficult to see this kind of starkness.

Sure.

You may get a sense of ‘something wrong’ but far too often we skate along the superficial surface of ‘something wrong’ assuming lack of depth or “not any starker than we have ever seen” and … well … we miss the true starkness.

My point?

What may sound like the rustle of some dead leaves on the ground may actually be the sound of some starkness we cannot even imagine.

By the way … what differentiates humans from other species isn’t opposable thumbs or the size of our brains … but rather compassion and an interest in humans – interest as in doing better, being better and jut … well … a better life <and helping people be better if they are not>.

While, of course, we want it to be better for ourselves we don’t want it to suck for others. And we certainly don’t want anyone to have such a stark existence that their Life retains no color or, worse, no hope.

The difficulty in fulfilling this inner innate characteristic is the outer irate characteristic of Life. It is always angrily demanding you to focus on it … and not the other humans occupying Life.

Look.

I am not suggesting running around listening to everyone’s whispers looking to save everyone.

I would suggest that the two quotes I used reminded me that saving a human … just one … can sometimes be enough.

Just listen closely.

Humans can fall to pieces so quietly. And no human, even someone we really do not like much, deserves to have such a stark existence that … well … they can only stare blankly at a Life falling apart.

As in war, chess requires one should preserve what one can, and sacrifice what one cannot.

Even to the sacrifice of the most valuable pieces to win the game.”

—-

Rachel Caine

=====================

“I’m sick of people telling me it’s just a “get over it” situation. Fuck you. You don’t know what it’s like in my head. “

—

The Newsroom

========================

“When all the world’s a lock, you don’t find a key, you become the key.”

—-

Rachel Caine

===========================

Ok.

This is about sacrifices and how we manage, or mismanage, the sacrifices we make.

Simplistically … I tend to believe we all know that if you have to give something meaningful up … you should make it count.

Now.

We make sacrifices all the time.

Shit.

Sometimes we don’t even want to make a sacrifice … but Life steps in and actually demands we make one <and we have to deal with it>.

Regardless.

The problem is that I would bet <and I am not a betting man> that we squander 90% of our sacrifices. And I suggest that 90% number knowing that this number just doesn’t include the small sacrifices … but also some of the larger “life-defining” sacrifices.

Yeah … the larger ones. The larger ones include the kind of sacrifice that can be a defining moment — kind of a crossroads in a way. Now. I purposefully used ‘defining’ because … well … let’s face it … many of us every day schmucks can often lack a certain sureness of our own identity and a sacrifice has a nasty habit of making us face that fact and think about doing something about it.

All of what I just suggested means most of the time we want to make the sacrifice count.

Now.

The next problem is with our sacrifice mismanagement.

Almost every one of us has made some personal life changing decision <which included a sacrifice> … and went in ‘whole hog’ … and failed.

Therefore, we take our sacrifice and then sometimes seek some clarity of self or sometimes seek some collective-type identity by joining some movement or group. We convert our personal sacrifice into some collective ‘spirit of shared visions & goals’ as a means to not only seek some positive affirmation to our sacrifice but also to … well … hedge our bets.

Huh?

We know we failed in personal pursuit but believe, if in a group, it will be harder to squander the sacrifice … to not let the sacrifice not count.

Look.

I am not going to comment, or criticize, how anyone pursues insuring their sacrifice counts because what matters is insuring that any sacrifice you make doesn’t get wasted.

What I will suggest is that we let far too many sacrifices lay wasted in our rear view mirrors. I would argue that a sacrifice is like starting the engine and putting everything into gear … but you gotta supply the gas and keep your foot on the gas pedal and your hands on the steering wheel.

If you doubt that we waste them … start by just thinking about all the ‘right things’ we associate with sacrifices.

Shit.

We even have sayings to express our desire to make it count once … well … deciding it SHOULD count:

… in for a penny, in for a pound.

… go big or go home.

… all or nothing.

We say all this shit all the time which means, in our heads, that the implication is to ‘go for it’ despite the potential time investment, potential energy & effort investment and potential costs investment.

Yes … great intentions.

But … we waste it.

Simplistically most of us will run a 100 yard dash in a 5 mile race.

And then we look at the 100 yards and say “whew, I gave it my all … I went big … I was all in.” And for a 100 yards you were. The problem is that the finish line, assuming there is a finish line at all, is … well … there is another … uhm … 8700 yards to go.

Yeah.

Another 87 100 yard dashes.

That’s why making sacrifices count is so hard.

Almost everyone will go for it for 100 yards having given a meaningful sacrifice.

And will feel like you gave it a good college try.

A smaller percentage maybe will do the 2000 yards in the race … just suck it up and go for 20 100 yard dashes.

And feel like you gave it a good college try.

And a much smaller, much smaller, percentage of people will do the full 88 100 yard dashes and finish the 5 miles and make the sacrifice really count.

Well.

I will say that sacrifices really do come down to you. As in the quote I used upfront … if you make a sacrifice you don’t look for a key … you become the key that unlocks “making it count.”

Lastly.

All that said about investing the energy … we actually fuck up the whole concept of sacrifice. We fuck it up by suggesting making it count relies solely on energy & focus. But many true sacrifices demand … well … real sacrifices. What I mean by that is there are situations where you have to decide that if you want to do something or get somewhere you have to be willing to make whatever sacrifice will get you there – any sacrifice.

This makes me remind everyone what I noted upfront … chess is a great metaphor.

Many times you sacrifice a rook, a knight … maybe even the queen, the most valuable piece, to win the game.

Uhm.

That is ‘going for it.’

That is ‘go big or go home.’

It’s not just running the entire 88 100 yard dashes but also sacrificing something else <sometimes, not always> to get to where it all really counts.

And maybe that is my point.

We sometimes are fairly flippant with regard to ‘sacrifice.’

And other times, when big sacrifices are forced upon us, we are not flippant with regard to our intentions to make it count .. but because we did not choose the sacrifice, it was thrust upon us, the internal engine isn’t focused on making it count as hard as if we had actually chosen to make the sacrifice.

This all means 90% of the time we do not really make sacrifices count.

“Her sentences were icebergs, with just the tip of her thought coming out of her mouth, and the rest kept up in her head.”

–

Gregory Galloway

====================

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

—–

Ralph Waldo Emerson

===============

Ok.

I can honestly say that I have few friends who I know the full thinking, everything they truly think, about a thought.

Very few.

This includes even my best friends.

Uhm.

I don’t think this is unusual.

More often we only see the tip of the iceberg.

Some words to open a thought.

A sentence or two which offer a preface to a bigger story.

The rest is kept up in their heads.

The ones we know the best may give us some cues, assuming we are paying attention enough, as to where to go next.

The ones we know the least may give us only the tip of the iceberg thinking we may not deserve the rest or maybe the rest is none of our business.

Not to mix metaphors <but I will> people are truly like books we peruse at a bookstore. We scan the covers, maybe read the back and sometimes even open it up and read the inside sleeve to get a sense of what is inside. 90% of the time that is what we end up knowing about the book.

<kind of the same as an iceberg … just inside instead>

Now.

In business this is a little different.

In business … assuming you ever want to get some decisions and get something done … far more often you are exposed to a full iceberg, with regard to a thought, because business demands it. About the only way you can ever get an idea from insight to real action is to figure out a way to lift the bottom of the iceberg up & out from the ocean of ignorance and into the conference room light. And even then the business world does everything it can to encourage you to only show “what is important” … as in … “just show me the tops of the icebergs … that is all I have time for” <the assumption being (1) that is all that really matters & (2) if you are good enough you will show the tip of the iceberg well enough we will get a sense of what is under the water>.

That last thought is kind of bullshit & why this iceberg metaphor is so appropriate. The majority of any idea and thought is found below water not above and 99% of the time what is above water gives very little indication of what is truly below the water.

Compounding this issue is … well … more often than not if you bring an iceberg into a meeting you will have to discuss the fact there are a bunch of other icebergs, also with tips people can see and bottoms one can only imagine, floating around the iceberg you are discussing.

The shallowest of people in the room will scan the tips floating around and assess that way. The more thoughtful want to know at least something about the parts they cannot obviously see. And the most thoughtful are interested in everything they cannot see … even if it takes a lot of time and it is less than simple.

All that said.

I could argue that in Life or in business what is important is the part most often not seen or heard.

I could argue that in Life or in business what we actually do is spend a shitload of time focused solely on the tips of icebergs.

I could argue that the latter point is the foolish consistency of the hobgoblin of foolish little minds.

To be clear … you cannot chase all icebergs. Attitudinally you would benefit by always being curious with regard to what you can’t see but behaviorally there is just not enough time to chase down everything beneath the surface if you ever want to get anything done. in other words … chasing icebergs is not easy.

Look.

I could conclude my thought today pounding away on the importance of using curiosity to avoid bad business decisions but I will not.

Instead I will use a personal thought to make a business point.

If you think about the moments you took a moment and stopped after hearing a sentence from a friend, the tip of an iceberg as it were, and followed up with some curiosity with regard the rest of the thought that you assume was kept in the mind … and how much you were rewarded in terms of enlightenment by doing so … well … I kind of think that makes my point. It is typically a rewarding effort in terms of your friendship and connection.

We can spend our lives skating along the icy surface of irrelevance focused on the tips of icebergs or we can decide to dive down and see the larger portions of thoughts, ideas and minds hidden from sight.

“Possibly,” Jace said, “but you do have to admit that the majority of things are.”

―

Cassandra Clare

===========

“Who knows himself a braggart, let him fear this, for it will come to pass that every braggart shall be found an ass.”

―

William Shakespeare

=====================

“Or, rather, let us be more simple and less vain.”

―

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

============

So.

We all have worked with assholes.

We all have also most likely worked with egotistical assholes.

And, unfortunately, we all have most likely worked with competent egotistical assholes. This is the particular type of asshole who actually kind of knows their shit, is overly satisfied with their competence, tells everyone who good they are and says all of this no matter what has actually happened <good or bad>or whether it is actually reflective of reality.

I have never really worked for anyone like this <fortunately> but I do know from experience that these people particularly suck to work with because, yeah, they don’t completely suck from a functional professional standpoint … so you cannot completely ignore them and, even worse, they may actually even have some specific skill you may need at some point.

What makes it suck for you is that they have some serious flaws <not that they would ever admit it> and that they will take credit for anything and everything they can, they will multiply wins in exaggerated results and effort and diminish, if not even blame others, for lack of successes.

They are, and always will be, the biggest self-promoters <assholes> you will ever encounter.

They are, and always will be, the biggest selective users of facts and specifics to showcase whatever self-style & strength they want to portray <their own assholedness>.

They are a legend in their own mind <and an asshole to the rest of us>.

But, at their best, they are not only competent but can actually contribute.

These assholes are tougher to deal with and manage than the incompetent. You can ignore the incompetent <or the ‘less than useful’ or the “beyond their sell-by date’ people>.

Once again … I have never had to report to an incompetent blowhard <or an incompetent non blowhard> but I have had several “senior people who were beyond their sell-by date” who you never permitted in a meeting by themselves <for fear of what they would say or promise> and you always tried to diplomatically curb their responsibilities and impact.

They were not always truly assholes or incompetent just ‘less than desired usefulness’ for the business needs.

But the competent blowhards are a bear to deal with.

You are constantly sitting there thinking … “Jesus … wouldn’t it be terrific to be able to reap the rewards without putting up with the blowhard bullshit?”

I actually found an article suggesting some tips on how you can “harness the superb results these folks generate without having to put up with their acting out.”

Whew.

That article was off base. You cannot harness a blowhard … competent or incompetent.

An egotistical competent person is … well … an egotistical <typically “narcissistic”> competent blowhard asshole and there is little to get around that.

You just figure out how to get around them, use them the best you can and take them head on strategically <knowing you cannot take them head on all the time>.

To be clear.

I am using “asshole” loosely here. As someone noted somewhere … the term “asshole” is also used as a euphemistic reference to people whom we classify as “disagreeable.”

A blowhard is disagreeable but so can a lot of good people who aren’t narcissistic. Shit. Contrarians can portray some asshole tendencies <see myself as a prime example> but not all contrarians are fucking egotistical self-promoting blowhards.

I could argue that since each of us is an asshole to someone the term is always relative. In other words, one person’s asshole can be another person’s hero.

Therefore … in my eyes … it takes a lot of effort to be a competent asshole.

Incompetent assholes don’t know that they are assholes.

Competent assholes KNOW that they are assholes.

I am writing this because, unfortunately, this is a conversation we all have in business. Egomaniac assholes are in every business. We have to deal with them and the reality is that sometimes they are in senior management.

They may actually be competent but they are manipulative, obsessive, and aggravatingly boastful and far too often bullies.

They may actually have some aspects of competence and use it to throw anyone around them who also shows signs of threatening competence under the bus at any given opportunity.

They actually do it under the guise of “creating a competitive always improving environment” when they are really simply insecure assholes who want to diminish anyone around them so they look bigger & better.

—————————————–

Hayakawa: Use the Right Word:

By definition ‘boast’ suggests a self-important and tasteless pointing out of one’s own successes.

Occasionally the word can refer to self-congratulation for a victory not yet won. Brag intensifies the note of tastelessness in boast, suggesting limitless conceit and, possibly, inaccuracy of the claims being made – bragging about imaginary exploits. And then there is ‘crowing’ which suggests a noisy or vociferous bragging of an extremely offensive kind. And ‘gloating’? Gloating is an intensification of crow – although it need not be verbal and sometimes suggests taunting someone that one has bested.

By definition: egomania

…. an obsessive preoccupation with one’s self and applies to someone who follows their own ungoverned impulses and is possessed by delusions of personal greatness and feels a lack of appreciation.

——————————————

Look.

I don’t mind a manager with a healthy sense of ego, but the true competent blowhards are best to avoid if possible because they have elements of toxicity.

In Toxic Workers , a new Harvard Business School working paper, Michael Housman and Dylan Minor look at the paradox of “superstar” workers who outperform their colleagues by 2:1 or more, but who are “toxic” — awful to work with and be around.

The connection between toxicity and productivity has been validated in several studies, but the question that Housman and Minor set out to answer is, “are 1%, superstar workers worth the trouble they cause in the workplace?”

Using a clever empirical methodology, they demonstrate that, basically, you shouldn’t work with assholes. It’s better to hire two average employees than to keep one “superstar” on the payroll, once you factor in the disruption that your talented jerk wreaks on their colleagues.

Simplistically the blowhards distort things. They exaggerate good, diminish bad, consistently use a made up unique formula of uncertainties & lack of clarity, offer alternatives <facts & universes> and serve to only create difficulties in exactly describing what is, and isn’t, actually happening.

While accomplishing some things, which if discussed like a normal human being everyone would be fine with, the abnormal human being says shit like: “I don’t think there’s ever been anyone who in this short period of time has done what I’ve done.”

Uhm.

Unfortunately for whoever says this there is typically some actual proof that someone somewhere has actually achieved a lot more. But that really doesn’t matter to this type of person … all they have to do is do enough and make it look hopeful enough that a group of employees ignore the hyperbole and focus on the fact someone has done something.

By the way.

What makes this truly toxic is the fact the competent non-blowhards around this person start ignoring the blowhard and just doing their own thing <and his because even more toxic to a business the more senior the blowhard is>.

I imagine my point here is that we all know someone at work whose biggest fan is himself/herself. They exaggerate all their contributions and diminish & deflect any blame or negatives.

Those people make it really difficult to compliment. Our first instinct is to try and deflate <or ‘right-size’> accomplishments so that even good gets diminished so it doesn’t get exaggerated. Unfortunately his sometimes means that even when credit is due the person has just made it hard for us to WANT to give them credit.

=============

“Until the lion learns how to write, every story will glorify the hunter.”

—

African proverb

===

Regardless.

We all know some of these people who do not recognize that they are one of those people.

Particularly in business.

They aren’t psychopaths and they aren’t the kind of assholes that are raging assholes … these are just the assholes oblivious to their assholedness. Suffice it to say far and away the number one way they justify their existence is “the end justifies the means.”

“But I made the numbers.”

“We won.”

“We finished.”

All the while ignoring the carnage left behind.

The carnage can be lost employees, pissed off employees, tired <emotionally and physically> employees, angry peers and disappointed or abused partners.

<lost>

They couldn’t keep up or they were not good enough <good they are gone … we weed out those who can’t keep up>.

<pissed off>

You can’t always pamper people to get them across the finish line <they like me because they know it is all done with ‘tough love’>.

<tired>

I pushed them beyond what they thought they could do <they won’t be angry once they see how I helped them realize their potential>.

<peers>

The other managers don’t recognize what it takes to get it done <my project was more important and they won’t be angry once they see the result and how the team responded …or … I am showing them how it should be done>.

<partners>

They have good intentions but I need to keep them focused on our priorities and objectives and needs <they work for us and need us more than we need them>.

Those are the tricks of the trade of the competent blowhards.

Regardless.

Yes.

Success does matter.

No.

I am not suggesting we shouldn’t value ‘the kill’ or even ‘ability to effectively stalk the prey’ in business.

But … Yes.

I do believe how you kill or stalk matters.

Look.

Blowhards can try and convince us of competence in a variety of ways … they can showcase fulfilling promises which does not show the actions of a skilled CEO but rather a bumbling overwhelmed CEO focused on showing action to try and cover up incompetence.

I say that because even bumbling incompetent CEO’s can do some things right in a flurry of ‘doing shit.’ I say that because even a semi-incoherent senior business person can do some things right AND justify it in some fairly creative common sense sounding ways.

The following is something I found somewhere <I cannot find where> from someone who actually responded to “being an asshole manager” which showcase how a competent asshole business person can quite easily justify their actions.

Please note that there is a strong thread of truly competent thoughts.

Please note that if I were so inclined I could go back through every point and slice out the slightly self-righteous aspects and showcase how you can actually be competent and not an asshole AND not pamper your employees’ every whim … but I will not.

=======

…. not sure how you define asshole, but I suppose being blunt, efficient, and unable to cater to every employee’s wants (not needs) goes a long way. I go out of my way to reward my best employees, give them the resources they need, approve their time off outside of work, etc. I take a pedagogical approach to my role, passing knowledge to my employees that will help them advance their careers (and make my job easier). Yet, I’m still the asshole.

Here are some reasons I’m an asshole manager:

I’m responsible for making a diverse group of people with varying job roles work together. Try coming up with one rule or guideline that makes everyone happy.

Some employees only work as hard as they have to. And they hate it when you ask them to do more.

Some employees (often the ones who only do the bare minimum) expect to be promoted just for showing up. You can print them a crystal clear roadmap to success within your company, and they’ll still paddle along, doing nothing to distinguish themselves, then ask to be supervisor.

Ingratitude is the status quo. Once, everyone in the department got tiny raises (three figures). The reason they were tiny is because we shifted our fiscal year; there was a tiny pool for compensation increases. Because someone had left, I was able to get every one of my employees a raise larger than the 1.5% average everyone in the company had to adhere to. I know it’s not a lot, but I put in a lot of effort to make their tiny raises a little less tiny. The fact they got more than the average was clearly explained to them. The response: the raises “were a slap in the face.” Fine. Next time, we’ll spend the money on a clever fucking food truck half of you won’t like.

As a manager, much of your employee’s well-being (compensation, promotion, career growth) depends on you. At the same time, this isn’t a day care center; it’s a business, and my job is to get my employees to do their jobs. That’s a hell of burden, and it makes me less likely to be everyone’s buddy when instead I have to be fair and compassionate, but also directive and efficient.

In the same vein, employees know how much power you have over things like compensation, so they’re never, ever totally honest with you. Personality problems I constantly hear about third-hand magically disappear when I’m leading from the floor. Also, employees will admit to making small mistakes, which upon five seconds of investigation, turn out to be related to much larger mistakes they say nothing about.

Paranoia is the status quo. I can’t explain to employee #1 why I wrote employee #2 up. That would be unprofessional, and would betray the disciplined employee’s trust. Yet if it appears on the surface that I’m being unfair, then the conspiracy theorists kick in and all of a sudden I’m playing favorites. Example: Two employees don’t show up to work. One is written up. The first employee has a documented record of excessively calling in sick, and misses work yet again, without notice. The other, who has an exemplary attendance record, has a family emergency and calls into work in advance. The former would get written up before the latter every time. Employees aren’t privy to these details, so they form their own conclusions baked in resentment. And God help you if the employee who incorrectly thinks they’re being treated unfairly is a woman or a minority.

You can’t listen to music with the N-word in it. You can’t describe the hot girl you met. You can’t tell off-color jokes, listen to Howard Stern, or share clips of that R-rated stand-up comedian. I’m going to write you up for breaking those rules. You may even get fired. The alternative is me losing my job because I tolerated a hostile work environment. So yes, we’re a friendly, down-to-earth, casual company…until tone-deaf legal standards force us to behave otherwise.

Millennials, calling into work because you’re stressed isn’t a good excuse. Especially if it happens exclusively on Fridays and Mondays. I’m going to call you out on it.

When HR makes a decision to fire you, I’m the one who breaks the news. When finance says we can’t afford that tool to make your job easier, I’m the one who communicates the message. Part of my job is to be the face of the company to you. Your bridge to the massive bureaucracy. Of course I’m going to sound like an asshole to you. And no, I don’t have time to make you feel better about it. So put my picture on the dartboard. Slander me if it makes you feel better about things. As long as you’re doing your job and I’m doing my best to treat you fairly and humanely, the rest is your problem.

============

So.

That sounded fairly reasonable, didn’t it?

I chuckled a little and stopped myself from going back and showing the author where they were … well … as asshole <but still pointing out their competence>.

Being a manager and a leader is not easy. If it were then … well … not only could anyone be one anyone could actually be a good one.

I shared the 10 thoughts above because the difference between an asshole leader, and a competent non asshole leader, can often be defined in shades … not vivid colors <although the result often can be viewed in vivid displays of rich & royal hues>.

And that vivid comparison truly comes to Life if you are viewing a competent arrogant blowhard.

I was an okay manager & leader. I did some things okay and some things not so okay. I can honestly say I did get better at it as time went on and I am much better now, and how I discuss leadership, than I was even 5 years ago.

I am much better at identifying incompetence and the characteristics one should look at in defining and judging managers and leaders than I was at the beginning of my career <at the beginning it was just “boy, that feel and looks wrong” and now it is “let me point out the five things which are wrong that makes it feel wrong.”

What I can tell you is that you don’t need me to point out an arrogant, narcissistic, semi-competent blowhard. You can see them a mile away and even if you just “feel it” you are more than likely right.

An asshole is an asshole. Once you have seen an asshole and felt what it is like to be around an asshole … well … you will never forget the feeling.

==================

“Besides, nowadays, almost all capable people are terribly afraid of being ridiculous, and are miserable because of it.”

“How do we forgive ourselves for all of the things we did not become?”

—

David ‘Doc’ Luben

====================

Ok.

Have you ever noticed that rock bottom is actually relative?

It is actually not a ‘bottom’ but rather like floors in a high rise building.

Someone can see a homeless person and think “rock bottom” and, yet, that homeless person, if asked, would say “oh, I have been lower.”

Someone can hear a millionaire recount when they were bankrupt and ‘it was rock bottom’ and, yet, two years later they were a millionaire again.

I am not suggesting that a wealthy person cannot see a starving child in a poverty stricken neighborhood as rock bottom … just that they cannot ever envision it is a viable rock bottom for themselves – ‘couldn’t happen to me’ syndrome.

I will not argue that people use their own versions of rock bottom as leverage points for progress and moving upwards away from that bottom. JK Rowling is certainly a great example of that <although … it would behoove us to acknowledge that she is an exception and not the rule>.

But if you ever want to truly understand how fucked up we tend to view rock bottom just take a second and ponder the wealthy view and how they discuss ‘entitlements’ and monetary safety nets.

It drives me a little nuts to hear some millionaire talking about the time they ‘lost it all’ and, yet, they sit in some plush chair wearing a hundred+ dollar tie discussing their comeback from rock bottom as a ‘self-made millionaire who fought his way back’.

Uhm.

Real rock bottom doesn’t permit you to go from less than zero to multi-millionaire unless you live in some privileged world or you win the lottery.

My real point is that rock bottom is relative.

The 50something C-level experienced person out of work for several years with dwindling bank balances and no discernible path off of the slippery slope certainly feels rock bottom. But their bottom is measured by what they had and what they lost … and what they believe they will be able to gain again <if given the opportunity>. And “opportunity” … even at their bottom certainly seems within a ‘hopeful grasp.’

Conversely, the hard working blue collar worker constantly on the edge of poverty or “making do” deems rock bottom as losing whatever they have gained … maybe a house or maybe just an apartment in which the adult has their own room and dinner food 6 days a week for everyone in the family. They may not view “opportunity” as hopeful but rather some small step toward relief from some worry.

The wealthy talk about ‘understanding’ that kind of rock bottom, but they don’t.

There is no way they do. In their world rock bottom is significantly different and the path out of that rock bottom hole looks significantly different.

=============

“She destroyed too many good things in society, and created too many bad ones, then left a social and moral vacuum in which the selfishly rich and unimaginatively fortunate could too easily destroy still more of what they don’t need and can’t see that everyone else does need.”

———-

Emma Darwin

=======================

I am picking on the wealthy <mostly because many of them live in some absurd world view in which everyone has the same opportunity to attain the wealth that they have> but everyone views rock bottom thru their own relativity lens.

And, in general, that is okay.

It is mostly okay because it is our own self calibration, and motivation, mechanism to challenge ourselves to get what we want. The difficulty happens when you start applying your own self calibration to others.

Look.

Rock bottom is fairly easy to see if you look around without cynicism.

Look around.

Entitlement programs represent almost 2/3rds of the American federal budget. Almost half of American households receive some assistance from the government.

When we see numbers like this most of us get grumpy and many of us think there is some underlying problem <which is difficult to put a finger on>.

Simplistically the biggest problem is that nobody thinks they’re the problem.

Shit. To be fair. Nobody ever wants to think they’re the problem.

Unfortunately, the truth is as long as we continue to think of the rising cultural reliance on government assistance as someone else’s problem, and someone else’s fault, we’ll never truly understand it and we’ll have absolutely zero chance of fixing it.

Unfortunately, the truth is that an America assistance culture is far more pervasive than people realize – even beyond the lazy moochers and deserving poor <of which there are certainly lazy moochers but far less than what we perceive>.

Even the wealthy rely on government assistance … just in different ways.

Here is the truth. People want more stuff than what they have and everyone hates losing what they have. Therefore rock bottom relativity centers on that understanding – what I have, what I have lost, what I could gain.

That formula works if you earn $100 a week or $1000 an hour.

The truth is that … well … now everyone feels like they are entitled – even the wealthy — which is driven by a belief everyone is getting rich, or richer, but them.

This makes people become resentful, jealous, angry, and a little selfish. They are working hard and they want their share and they are at their rock bottom and see someone getting what they believe they deserve.

Now.

People, in general, know this is wrong and people, in general, don’t like this feeling and they resent feeling this way <and acting this way>. They get a little pissed that the definition of rock bottom isn’t some simple ‘same for everyone’ so they start lashing out and blaming other people.

People are milking the system.

People in government <whichever party you want> are creating the problem.

People who don’t look like us are to blame.

People think their rock bottom is more important than everyone else’s rock bottom.

And all people want a simple thing to point at and say ”fuck you, I am at rock bottom and I do not want to be here.”

Here is a truth.

The truth is that it is a systemic issue and, I would argue, our failing to truly understand rock bottom.

I will offer a quasi-contradictory thought to end this.

As a generalization … wealthy people <say 90% of them> has an absurd concept of rock bottom and fairly consistently misjudge attitudes & behaviors of poorer people at their rock bottoms.

Conversely … it is a massive mistake to generalize the non-wealthy and their rock bottoms. While I felt comfortable generalizing with the wealthy <because I believe overall they have more opportunities within their grasp more easily graspable> I am not comfortable doing so with less wealthy people. And I say that to go back to my original opening point – rock bottom is relative and personal.

That point is pretty important.

It is important because we tend to want to create some sweeping program and solution which misses the fact that it is more likely to be successful if we go one-on-one and help individuals assess their rock bottom and help them get somewhere other than a bottom.

What I would feel comfortable making a generalization on is the fact that any less-than-wealthy person at their rock bottom has no desire to remain there. They may have no clue how to get out of their hole. They may have absolutely no hope of getting out of their hole. They may exhibit no behaviors that suggest they want to get out of their hole.

But exactly 0% wants to remain in their bed at the rock bottom of their hole.

We should never permit anyone to make a bed at the rock bottom. Never.

================

“Life has many ways of testing a person’s will, either by having nothing happen at all or by having everything happen all at once.”

“There is a construct in computer programming called ‘the infinite loop’ which enables a computer to do what no other physical machine can do – to operate in perpetuity without tiring.

In the same way it doesn’t know exhaustion, it doesn’t know when it’s wrong and it can keep doing the wrong thing over and over without tiring.”

—–

John Maeda

=========

So.

Leading an organization is not like running a race … well … at least it is not like running a sprint.

Okay.

I am being stupid.

It’s not like running a race.

Nothing like it.

It is more like managing the health of a body in which you do want some exercise and you do want some healthy eating and you do want to insure proper amount of sleep.

Suggesting you want to run a business like you are in some marathon is silly and misguided.

It is just as misguided to think about an organization like a machine with gears and moving parts and keeping it well-oiled and full of gas and shit like that.

I say all of that to talk about organizational exhaustion.

If you stay away from silly metaphors about what an organization is, or is not, simplistically you are trying to insure your organization is putting forth a proper amount of effort against the efforts you want it, and need it, to be working against. This is a daily, weekly, monthly and annual leadership objective.

Different leaders have different styles working against this objective but, simplistically, that is the objective.

Now.

HOW you meet this objective typically takes some experience.

What do I mean?

I assume most leaders do not inherently know exactly how to do this … pacing an organization takes some experience and some practice, some mistakes and some successes and then you zero in on how to do it well <or just keep getting better at it>.

Using me as an example … I liked a hard charging group when I got to a team/group management level. And I, personally, would be ecstatic if I didn’t have to sleep and I could go 24/7.

And, in the beginning, that was my vision for my groups.

By the way … in general … good intentions … bad idea.

But what that meant was that I probably learned this lesson, pacing and applying effort appropriately, too slowly <and I most likely will have a bunch of past team members chuckling painfully in agreement>. Going hard charging all the time is not sustainable — you juts have a constantly exhausted group.

That said… in desiring to have hard charging organizations there were certainly some lessons anyone would learn to limit needless organizational exhaustion.

Here are a couple I learned along the way:

I had to be consistent.

It doesn’t get discussed often enough but expectations go both ways. As a leader setting clear expectations is certainly expected <and I will mention that in my second learning> but it really helps an organization if you establish clearly what people can expect of you – behaviorally and attitudinally.

Words surely matter.

Setting expectations surely matter.

Actions surely matter.

But consistency matters above all. No leader is perfect and no leader will make the perfect decisions, let alone good decisions, all the time. Therefore it becomes incredibly important to just be consistent. Your organization, and specifically people, will become better accustomed to where you will be really really good and where you may be slightly off <and they will naturally accommodate both>.

In other words … your consistency actually offers your employees some direction for what they should do. Your best people will assess situations and know where you are consistently most likely right on, know the things you consistently overlook and know where you consistently leave some spaces for them to ‘do their thing.’

Keep some strong threads of consistency.

Threads of consistency permit an organization to not have to think about some things.

There were some really simple tactical things that I could control.

What do you mean <clarity in articulation>

Where are we going <set a visible North Star>

What do you want me to do <pragmatic expectations>

If you could keep these three things solid and not have people milling about talking amongst themselves on these three questions you were staying ahead of the game.

It permits your organization to progress and not be stagnant. It permits your organization to not invest unnecessary energy against those things and apply energy against doing shit.

Of course, a leader doesn’t have to do these things.

Of course, a leader doesn’t do these things at their own peril.

The peril? Exhaustion. frustration. Waste energy.

Not doing these things has an expense to an organization and mostly that is defined by two things – time & energy. I would point out that both of those things are not infinite resources to an organization. I point t out because if they are finite than you better have them available to you when you actually need them.

And that is why I chose to not use an organization as a race metaphor at the beginning but rather an organization as a body metaphor.

Look.

As a leader of larger organization you can hide your misjudgments or poor decisions in a variety of creative ways … mostly by shifting resources from one group to another or have another department assume some different responsibilities or by shifting some people into the work gaps or to buttress the best people who are flagging with some support.

But that is also not sustainable.

The organization gets exhausted doing all that maneuvering … in addition … they get exhausted by you doing that.

I will admit that I got better at this as I moved up in responsibility. And, I will admit, I partially got better at it simply because I had more moving parts, departments and groups to manage. That is because I loved working 24/7 and I thrived with the energy of solving problems and … well … just energy. In a larger organization there is always something going on, some project or problem or initiative somewhere within an organization that needs attention or needs a little ‘push.’ This naturally permitted me to let one part of the organization ‘rest’ while another part of the organization ‘ran.’

Oh.

Think about that a second or two if you will.

What I just suggested is that an organization as a well-rounded circle or the classical myth of a ‘well rounded person’ is … well … simply a myth. In fact … the idea of it creates a false narrative in our heads. As an organization learns and thinks and gains experience it does not expand smoothly but, rather, raggedly. Day after day, despite the fact it may feel like business is a grind or it may even feel too fast <or too slow> an organization is constantly running toward some thought and experience … or … leaping from danger or something disagreeable or some problem or some success and … well … suffice it to say it is anything but balanced.

And it is certainly not creating any smooth well rounded growth.

My main point?

There is no such thing as a well-rounded person and there is no such thing as a well rounded organization. A leader may certainly aspire to create a well-rounded organization but, even at your best, the organization at any given point in time is some shape other than a circle.

The good news is that this means organizations also naturally get excited to explore the edged forays into interesting things and, in parallel, get snagged on the ragged edges of unexplored thoughts or even second guesses with regard to the lack of smoothness in what is happening in departments, groups and efforts … as well as thoughts and growth.

Yes.

I will point out that this is why an organization can feel slightly uncomfortable on occasion as employees, departments and groups wrestle with this discomfort, as well as dealing with the ragged edges constantly poking at everyone, but I will also point out that is why the things I mentioned earlier become even more important –the consistency, the clarity and the lack of chaos.

I will also point out that his kind of ‘uncomfortable’ is okay. Ito a leader it is actually a sign that things are going okay and the organization is not stagnant <and good leaders know how to point out good non-stagnancy to calm uncomfortable>.

All that said.

I can unequivocally state that no organization is successful when needlessly exhausted. They can be tired at the end of the day but exhaustion is a symptom not of ‘a good day’s work’ but rather unnecessary mental stress trying to get things going, understand what to do and what to say and kibitzing over why it is so hard to get what seems like normal shit done.

When an organization is running well … whether the 350 million, 350 or the 35 recognize it … there are many days when the 1, the leader, leaves the office exhausted.

And the one is exhausted despite the fact that 349,999,900 people, 341 people or 34 people went to sleep that day feeling pretty good about their day and their needs & wants & hopes took one step forward that day … and they are a good tired … not needlessly exhausted.

Oh.

Despite the fact the one went to bed exhausted that one will arise the next day fresh because the organization is ready to go again the next day … and not organizationally exhausted.

I will end by pointing out that an exhausted group, an exhausted department or an exhausted organization is the sign of poor leadership. And, most importantly, it is a precursor to signs of inefficiencies and declines in measured productivity.